Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Shooting into a dark car at night without verification is not recommended. Her uncle was in the car but not driving. DEA says she was a decoy. Family says she was learning to drive and wanted to drive the car around block and put it in garage. If you wanted a decoy, wouldn't you use the uncle and not a child as a driver.
1 posted on 03/13/2003 8:08:49 AM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: wildbill
"When investigators tried to stop her sedan, officials said, she rammed their unmarked vehicles and accelerated toward agents, who opened fire without being able to see who was at the wheel."

When a driver tries to run down a cop (or agents), they are allowed to defend themselves using deadly force, or else they or other bystanders could be killed. It's a pity, but it's not the agents' fault.

2 posted on 03/13/2003 8:15:40 AM PST by theDentist (So..... This is Virginia..... where are all the virgins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
"Shooting into a dark car at night without verification is not recommended."

However, shooting into a dark car at night without verification is highly recommended if the driver is trying to run you down.

"Family says she was learning to drive and wanted to drive the car around block and put it in garage."

How does this jibe with, "The narrative described in the lawsuit says Ashley believed the agents were gang members."

What, she wanted to show the gang members how well she could drive? If I'm dealing drugs and gang members are outside, the last thing I'm going to do is practice "Rules of the Road".

4 posted on 03/13/2003 8:20:26 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
Every enforcement officers' gun should have a video camera attached to it which begins taping when removed from the holster. This is the only gun control which I advocate.
9 posted on 03/13/2003 8:42:57 AM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
Family says she was learning to drive and wanted to drive the car around block and put it in garage.

When I was learning to drive, my parents would have sooner let a wild dingo drive the car at night - even around the block - than let me. Full daylight with parents in the car only, and preferably around an empty parking lot.
15 posted on 03/13/2003 8:57:32 AM PST by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
Headlights off. That is a big factor for me.

She was "learning how to drive" at 14. Another big factor for me.

Does Texas even allow driver permits for 14 year olds? Pretty sure you need to be 15 to start learning. Then her Uncle allows her to start driving at night with her lights off? Doubtful.

Sounds to me that she was told to "go get their attention", but instead of leading them on a chase, she ended up hitting one of their cars and driving right at some of the officers. How many officers were there? The suit is only brought against 2, but there were likely more if it were an operation to arrest her Father.

"But she was only 14!"

Nobody in harms way knew that, all they knew was a driver in a car was endangering law enforcement agents. Would you hesitate to pull the trigger on someone breaking into your house with a gun drawn? Would you try to find out how old they were before you took action? Of course not. Just because she was 14 doesn't mean that the car was made of soft foam. She could have killed them as easily as a 37 year old man with that car.

I know that there are many here who hate any law enforcement and think all cops and agents deserve to die. Those people are anarchists of a worse kind than any of the loony protestors.

17 posted on 03/13/2003 9:11:43 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
Wow, I missed this. The police apologists have alredy shwon up and had this moved to the SBR.

The DEA depends on the gullibility of the average dolt of a citizen. Decoy? My @$$.

24 posted on 03/13/2003 9:47:40 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
There is one thing that I haven't seen brought out yet.
If the DEA agents were there to arrest the father, had they just arrived?
Or did they have the house under surveillance?
If they had just arrived they had no idea who was in the car and should not have tried to stop it in that fashion.
If they had the house under surveillance they did know who was in the car, knew the young girl was driving, mistook the uncle for her father, and tried to stop the car. This would have been a breakdown in the surveillance as the father was not in the car.

The young girls inexperience could have led her to drive with lights off and take off at a higher than normal rate of speed.
When confronted with a situation such as being boxed in by two cars panic sets in and she goes back and forth, the agents get out of their car, draw their weapons, the girl sees men with weapons and tries to run them over or just drives in their direction trying to get out of the situation.

I have a few questions...
Was the house under surveillance?
Were there uniformed officers present?
Why did agents, when confronted with a car that was ramming theirs, get out of the car and stand in harms way? Is that standard procedure?

110 posted on 03/13/2003 1:47:40 PM PST by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
Good and I hope she wins it all from the fake drug war!
119 posted on 03/13/2003 3:55:46 PM PST by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
in fact she should sue for 1 billion dollars
120 posted on 03/13/2003 3:56:39 PM PST by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
THE O'REILLY FACTOR February 21, 2003 FACTOR Follow-Up

O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.

And, in THE FACTOR "Follow-Up" Segment tonight, bad news in the drug war.

The U.S. inexplicably did not destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan, and the Bush administration has not moved the military to the borders to back up the Border Patrol as the patrol has requested.

Result: It is business as usual for drug dealers around the country, and some believe America is waging a phony war on narcotics. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857630/posts

121 posted on 03/13/2003 3:59:04 PM PST by TLBSHOW (The gift is to see the truth......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; Bill D. Berger; ..
WOD Ping
124 posted on 03/14/2003 11:21:06 AM PST by jmc813 (Trampled by lambs and pecked by the doves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
the mother of a slain 14-year-old girl filed

Allowing her child to live in the home of a cocaine trafficker was completely stupid in the first place. Rival drug gangs will go and shoot up each other's homes and families. Anyone involved in drug trafficking doesn't much care about their kids.

143 posted on 03/15/2003 8:30:47 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wildbill
If you wanted a decoy, wouldn't you use the uncle and not a child as a driver.

As a drug dealer I would get a child to do the job, as most crimes use underage kids because they do not get jail terms.

185 posted on 03/18/2003 4:32:02 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson